Mass Shootings: Firearms Rights vs. Mental Illness

At the root, you will find mental illness. Look back to any of the mass-shooting tragedies and, at the heart of the matter, you will find mental illness. That is why, if there is a single gun control-related issue that has a majority of support, it would be a measure related to restricting access to, and ownership of, firearms from certain mentally ill individuals. In fact, according to the Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research at the University of Chicago: “More than 8 in 10 Americans favor a federal law preventing mentally ill people from purchasing guns,” the AP reported March 23.

“Where would you draw the line between mental illness where an individual has been evaluated to be a danger to themselves or others, and the right to firearm ownership?”

It would be easy enough to dispute many of the claims and reported statistics made in the AP article, but that is not my point. I would simply be preaching to the choir. Instead, let me pose my first question, “Where would you draw the line between mental illness where an individual has been evaluated to be a danger to themselves or others, and the right to firearm ownership?”

We can look to Florida’s latest round of gun control laws to see where it drew the lines. For Florida, in the 14-page law that was enacted following the Parkland shooting is a measure to temporarily prevent people “at high risk of harming themselves or others from accessing firearms.” So, that is interesting. It is a restriction. However, due to the word “temporarily” being placed in the language, we can deduce that there must be some limits or path to regaining rights. As always, I am sure the devil is in the details. Again, I ask you, the reader, for your opinion on this. Do, or would you, support such a law?

Pitfalls and Consequences

Next, drilling a little deeper but still along the same lines, how exactly is it determined (before an event) that a person is a danger to themselves or others? Is this by their own admission or a culmination of events or behaviors? What is the danger of a mental health professional with an agenda, or the government, going overboard and using such laws as a back door to gun control? After all, not so long ago under the Obama Administration, there were threats to the gun rights of individuals collecting government services.

Then there is the question of whether such policies would cause those who would otherwise seek treatment to shy away from it due to a fear of losing their Second Amendment rights. So I’ll pose the next question, “If the person is able to recognize their problems to the extent that they voluntarily reach out for help, should they still be precluded from firearm ownership or possession, or should a voluntary temporary surrender be all that is necessary?”

Read the following account and then comment.

At a hearing in St. Lucie County, Florida, Adam Fetterman, attorney for the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office, got Circuit Judge Janet Croom, who handles mental health matters, to issue such an order to seize a man’s firearms after the man was arrested for brandishing a gun while walking half-naked and acting unusually in a parking lot.

That seems pretty cut and dry, but neither the suspect, nor an attorney for him, was in court to potentially fight the order. Why hasn’t there been a lawsuit fighting such actions? Perhaps because it was in the public’s best interest? Maybe the individuals affected recognized the issue and have not sought to fight such orders. Sheriff’s officials have received cooperation from families in the other cases, so there have been no protracted legal battles.

Though Florida law does not require the accused to be present in court or have representation present, do you think civil rights groups should get involved in a case such as this proactively, or was the system’s actions appropriate in the interest of public safety?

Here is another case that is even more difficult for most.

On April 2, a circuit judge in Orlando lifted a temporary restriction on firearm possession against a student at the University of Central Florida.

Law enforcement initiated an investigation of the 21-year-old student after he went on social media to praise the alleged murderers in Parkland and Las Vegas as heroes. The student then went on to allegedly tell police he would probably shoot up the middle or high schools where he had been bullied if provoked by a tragic life event, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

The attorney for the student made the argument that the admission was protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

“She argued (the student) had not done anything to suggest he would act on the comments,” the Sentinel reported. “He had not purchased a weapon, and he did not have a criminal record… He would have voluntarily relinquished his gun rights had he been given the option.”

The student didn’t even have a gun, which begs the question, “After such an admission, should the student be placed on a watch list that prevents firearm ownership or requires additional scrutiny before legally purchasing a firearm?” Personally, I feel this still blames the firearm more than the individual. To a degree, it accounts for legally purchased firearms, but it does little to nothing against illegal purchases.

I have heard the counterargument that we should control the things we can, and react as best we can to minimize the things we cannot prevent. How does this affect your opinion or decision-making? Should the legal system have placed a restriction on firearms ownership by the student due to an exercise of free speech that may have been threatening? If no, how does that balance after an event where people look back and say all of the signs were there but no one acted upon them? If yes, what crime was committed that warrants the loss of a constitutional right?

Conclusion

I am not sure a heading of “conclusion” is appropriate here. The topic has so many variables, I do not think there is a simple answer or conclusion. The language of the Second Amendment is very clear to me, but we have placed limits on the First Amendment (yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater). There are situations when individuals have given up their Fourth Amendment protections against certain search and seizure, but that was after a “mentally competent person” signed a voluntary agreement. I do not equate that with most of the questions posed here regarding Second Amendment rights.

Let’s hear your opinion. As a community, let’s listen to the perspectives, opinions, ideas, and solutions of others. Sound off in the comment section with your opinion or any answers you have to the questions posed in the article regarding firearms rights and mental illness.

Like this:

Related

Reader Interactions

Comments

This whole issue is a very difficult thing. Yes, it would be great if shootings could be stopped before they happen, but there can also be great abuses of rights with the possibility of the government taking away someone’s gun rights (and possibly other right in the process, maybe like a prohibition for a person to also own other weapons or perhaps body armor). Having worked for a government regulatory agency for years, I know bad things happen because government agencies are made up of people who do not become saints nor wise men upon being hired into the government. Some get the power craze and let their self love take over their judgment. Some let their own personal agendas govern how they do their work and some liberal anti-gun person could use this as a way to gradually take away every gun right they encounter.

Another thing we all know that some use the government to get revenge on their enemies. I could easily see someone, say in a divorce, making up some claim about their estranged spouse being a great danger.

I recently had a business dispute with the management of a company that I knew was violating several ordinances and also was doing fraud on unemployment insurance. I did some complaints and am sure they had some rough times over that. I found out they now are telling people they are afraid I will come in and shoot the place up. This is exactly an example of what can happen when the government looks at taking away gun rights. People will use false claims as a means of getting revenge on their enemies. And who knows what government idiot will gladly go along with it to feel “proactive” and “conservative”.

As you stated several times this is a very complex issue. Mental Illness is too broadly defined right now. If it could be possible to use it to prevent it would have to have severe and strict criteria before ever being used but again I think it would be a failure. No way to really know how it would work. The best way to help prevent school shootings is to help prevent bullying. I was bullied growing up and I got suspended repeatedly for defending myself while the bully received nothing. The solution is a more caring populace and bring punishment back into the homes and having parents actually allowed to parent.

The biggest problem is that you can’t fix crazy/mental illness no matter how much money you throw at the problem, best we can hope for in our post – institution society is hoping that those afflicted will continue to take their meds. Personal experience leads me to believe that many will not.

The hard part is the people who admit they are ill and seek help and are getting help are the ones we would put on the list. It is the ones facing mental breakdowns and hiding it that won’t and they are the ones without an outlet that are most likely to be the harm. We had here a biology teacher run at an officer naked after recklessly driving and the officer tazed him with no results and ending up opening fire and taking the man’s life sadly. I say this because the tox screen showed nothing in his system and he was not on any alert so if he had a firearm the alert system would not have mattered as much. I think they should get help and not lose their right but be forthcoming to their psych evaluator who can make some sort of a call on it such as have them lock the firearm away till cleared or something just not taking away their rights.